Norwich City Council (202224333)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224333

Norwich City Council

31 January 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and request for repairs following a leak.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy. The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow. The landlord’s records state the resident’s husband has a long-term medical condition and mobility issues. It said it was aware he had cancer. The resident confirmed to this Service that her husband has cancer and is allergic to mould.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property. It also says it must carry out repairs if it knows about the disrepair. The resident is responsible for reporting any defects as soon as they become aware of them.
The landlord has told this Service that its repairs policy is under review. It also confirmed it completes emergency repairs within 24 hours and health and safety works within 5 working days. All other works are completed in 60 days. The landlord does not have a damp and mould policy.
The landlord says it investigates all reports of damp and mould. Reports are triaged and an appointment made for a surveyor or contractor to visit. On the first report of damp and mould, the landlord arranges a ‘washdown.’ A surveyor attends if any concerns are raised and remedial works ordered where appropriate. A further inspection is arranged if more reports are received.
The landlord’s compensation guide says it will offer financial compensation where there are major delays in carrying out repairs. It also says it will contribute to the cost of electricity for items such as dehumidifiers. Each case is assessed on its own merits following a full investigation.
The landlord has a two stage complaints policy. This says it will:
1. Acknowledge complaints within 5 working days.
2. Respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days.
3. Respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
4. Provide an explanation if more time is needed.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 May 2022 and said there was water on the floor underneath the kitchen units. She said she could not access the area as a kickboard was fitted when the new kitchen was installed. The landlord‘s contractor attended on 25 May 2022 and fixed the leak. The contractor asked the landlord on 26 May 2022 to assess the damage caused by the water to the kitchen and bathroom floors. They also said there was damp creeping up some of the internal walls.
The resident contacted the landlord on 31 May and 1 June 2022. She said she was waiting for someone to contact her about a dehumidifier to help with the damp. She also queried whether a surveyor was going to visit. She contacted the landlord again on 5 July 2022 and asked for an update.
The housing records show the landlord attended the property on 2 August 2022 and identified a number of repairs that needed completing. This included replacing the bathroom floor, refixing the bottom row of tiles in the bathroom and renewing the kitchen unit kickboards and end panel. The landlord has confirmed a damp survey was not completed. No vulnerabilities were recorded on the inspection form.
The resident made a complaint on 8 August 2022. She said she had tried to contact the landlord several times and had no response. She also said:
1. There was a leak on the boiler and the water had damaged the walls in the kitchen and bathroom. The kitchen door and bathroom floor were also damaged and there was damp in the kitchen and hallway.
2. The landlord had agreed to provide a dehumidifier, but this had not been given.
3. Her husband had cancer and suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
A job was raised on 30 September 2022 to replace the flooring and tiles in the bathroom, re-bed the floor tiles in the kitchen and renew the kitchen unit plinths and end panels.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 17 October 2022. It said:
1. There were delays in carrying out the repairs as major works were required. These works needed to be estimated and authorised before an order could be raised.
2. Further advice was being sought about the required works and someone would be in contact to arrange a date for the repairs to be completed.
The resident sought support with her complaint from a local councillor and a representative. The landlord confirmed on 28 October 2022 that works were in progress and a new floor would be fitted in the bathroom on 21 December 2022. It also said it had provided a dehumidifier and would contact the resident after Christmas about the further works required in the kitchen. The resident’s representative asked for the complaint to be escalated on 30 November 2022. They said the property was damp and was exacerbating the husband’s chronic health conditions. They also said a dehumidifier was needed.
The landlord’s said the resident cancelled the planned bathroom works scheduled for 21 December 2022. The resident said she asked for the works to be delayed.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 10 January 2023. She said the planned works would not address the repairs required and a dehumidifier had not been provided. The landlord contacted the resident on 13 February 2023 to arrange a visit. It said the resident swore and put the phone down on the member of staff.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 8 March 2023. It offered an apology for the delays and set out the actions it had taken. This included noting that the resident cancelled the work scheduled for December 2022. It also said a member of staff contacted the resident on 13 February 2023 to arrange an appointment to discuss the outstanding work, but the resident was verbally abusive and hung up. As a result, it was unable to arrange a visit. It said it wanted to visit and resolve the issues raised in the complaint.
The resident’s representative contacted the landlord on 21 March 2023 and said the resident had videos of the damp in the kitchen. They asked the landlord to undertake a thorough assessment to establish if there was damp behind the kitchen units. The landlord provided the resident with an update on 27 March 2023. It said:
1. There was no damp or mould in the kitchen.
2. The kitchen units did not need removing, but it had arranged for the plinths to be removed. This was to allow further air circulation to complete the drying process.
3. It would replace the plinths, adjust the kitchen door and decorate the kitchen and hallway.
4. An order had been placed to provide a dehumidifier as a precaution.
The resident told this Service she was unhappy with the length of time the landlord took to complete the repairs. This led to damp and mould. She said she was unable to use the bathroom whilst the work was carried out. She said the damp and mould had a detrimental impact on her husband’s health. She confirmed all works were completed in April 2023 apart from the kitchen door. She also noted the paintwork in the bathroom was starting to flake. She wants compensating for the inconvenience caused and the electric costs for the use of the dehumidifier.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In considering the landlord’s response to the issue of damp and mould, it is noted that the resident has referred to a possible impact upon her husband’s health. Whilst these concerns have been referenced in this report, it should be noted that the Ombudsman is not in a position to make findings about the possible impact of the issues under investigation on a resident’s health, as this would be more appropriate for a court to consider. In this respect, the resident is advised to seek legal advice if she wishes to take her concerns further.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and request for repairs following a leak.

The landlord has a duty to carry out repairs and works in accordance with the tenancy agreement. It also has an obligation to ensure it complies with the Housing, Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
Whilst reasonable timescales are not defined in law, the potential health risks from damp and mould are significant. It is this Service’s view that landlords should take urgent action following reports of damp and mould. They should also undertake a self-assessment against this Service’s spotlight review on damp and mould.
In the absence of a repairs policy and damp and mould policy, this Service has used the landlord’s submission to the Regulator of Social Housing and the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (“It’s not lifestyle,” published in October 2021) to determine whether the landlord’s actions were appropriate. This says landlords should take ‘’proactive interventions’’ in its approach to diagnosing damp and mould.
The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s report of a leak in May 2022 by arranging for a plumber to attend. It did not, however, act on the advice of its contractor who said the landlord needed to assess the damage caused by the water in the kitchen and bathroom. Neither did it assess the reports of damp on the walls caused by the long running, but undetected leak. The landlord was placed on notice about the damp and mould at this point. The landlord’s failure to assess the situation led to delays and meant it did not meet its obligations under the tenancy agreement.
From the evidence provided, it is evident the landlord did not respond to the resident’s enquiries about when a surveyor would visit and if she could be provided with a dehumidifier. This was not appropriate. It is vital for landlords to keep residents informed regarding the progress of repairs, particularly when delays arise. The fact the landlord did not do so in this case was a service failure and evidence that it also failed to meet the resident’s expectations, which is a key part of a landlord’s service delivery.
A visit was not carried out until August 2022. The 2-month delay was not appropriate given the potential health implications and the vulnerability of the resident’s husband. Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord has a duty to minimise the disadvantages related to a person’s protected characteristics. Given the resident’s reports of damp and mould, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have undertaken a damp survey. There is no evidence the landlord considered if her husband’s medical conditions were classified as a disability, as defined by the Equality Act. This was a service failure.
The lack of engagement around the potential damp issue was contrary to the approach required under the HHSRS and the Ombudsman’s spotlight review. It also supports the resident’s view that the landlord was not taking her reports seriously. Further delays were encountered with ordering the necessary works. This is further evidence that the landlord did not adopt a proactive approach in seeking to resolve the issue for the resident.
There is no evidence the landlord updated the resident after the visit. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter and caused inconvenience to the resident, as she was unclear on the landlord’s position. This led to the resident having to make a complaint. Whilst the delay in carrying out the works was acknowledged in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it did not tell the resident when the work would be done or offer any form of redress.
The housing records confirm the works to the bathroom were booked in for 21 December 2022. There is no evidence the landlord considered whether any reasonable adjustments were required when ordering the works. This would have been appropriate given the husband’s medical conditions, the nature of the work required and length of time it would take to complete.
The landlord said the work was cancelled by the resident. The resident has a different understanding of events and said she asked for it to be delayed until after Christmas. She also said she was concerned about the length of time it would take to undertake the work given her husband’s medical conditions and they would have no access to bathing facilities. This Service acknowledges the frustration experienced by the resident and accepts her reasoning for delaying the works were legitimate.
Whilst the resident is responsible for providing access, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have rearranged the appointment rather than cancel the works in the circumstances. It is acknowledged the resident’s decision contributed to the delays at this point and the landlord cannot be held responsible for this. There is, however, no evidence the landlord pursued the matter after the job was cancelled to ensure it met its repair obligations.
The housing records show no further contact was made with the resident until 13 February 2023. This was despite the resident making a complaint and contacting the landlord in January 2023. This was not appropriate and is further evidence of poor communication by the landlord. Whilst the landlord said the resident swore at a member of staff, there is no evidence this was followed up with her or the landlord attempting to rearrange for the work to be completed.
The housing records show that arrangements were made in February 2022 to complete work in the kitchen. This included removing the plinths and checking if the kitchen units were damaged. The landlord also agreed to redecorate the kitchen and hallway. It is unclear why the landlord took so long to identify these additional works. Arrangements were made to supply a dehumidifier, some 9 months after the leak was reported. This delay was not appropriate.
It was reasonable for the landlord to say it wanted to visit and resolve the issue for the resident in its stage 2 complaint response and demonstrated it wanted to try and put things right at that stage.
The landlord’s records regarding the provision of a dehumidifier are contradictory. It told the councillor on 28 November 2022 that it had supplied one, yet an order was not raised until 21 February 2023. It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure the landlord meets its repair obligations. It also ensures accurate information is provided to residents. There is no evidence the landlord has considered the resident’s request to be reimbursed the costs of running the dehumidifier.
In summary, the landlord did not complete a damp survey and there were unreasonable delays in completing the works. The landlord did not keep the resident updated and it is evident she had to continually chase matters up. It is also evident the resident was concerned about the impact the damp had on her husband’s health and the scale of the works. She shared these concerns with the landlord on numerous occasions, but it failed to act on this information. When it did respond, its responses lacked empathy and it did not consider the impact the situation was having on the resident and her husband. The resident said this caused her considerable distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance sets out our approach to resolving disputes. Maladministration can include a landlord’s failure to follow its own policies or procedures, unreasonable delays in dealing with a matter and dealing with a matter unfairly. In this instance, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling the resident’s reports of damp and repairs following a leak.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

There were delays in acknowledging and responding to the resident’s initial complaint. There is also no evidence the landlord contacted the resident before issuing its response to ensure it fully understood her concerns. The stage 1 complaint response was not issued until 2 months after the initial complaint was made. The response did not address the resident’s concerns or offer clarity on when the works would be done. Neither did it demonstrate that it had learnt from the complaint. This Service’s dispute resolution principles encourage landlords to not just resolve the immediate complaint, but to learn from outcomes in order to improve its wider service delivery.
Given the landlord acknowledged there were delays in completing the work, it would have been reasonable for it have offered some form of redress in accordance with its compensation guidance. This is evidence of a failure in the landlord’s complaint handling to put things right.
The landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint following contact from her councillor in October 2022 or from her representative in November 2022. The request to escalate the complaint was only logged after the resident contacted the landlord on 10 January 2023. This caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble.
The landlord took almost 2 months to issue its stage 2 complaint response and only after being contacted by this Service. An apology was offered, but the landlord did not fully address the resident’s concerns or identify any learning. The overall tone of the landlord’s complaint response lacked empathy, did not show it had considered the individual circumstances of the resident or the impact she had described. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered offering compensation to the resident in accordance with its compensation guidance.
In summary, there were unreasonable delays in the handling of the resident’s complaint by the landlord. There is no evidence the landlord learnt from the complaint and it failed to offer compensation. The complaint responses also lacked empathy and failed to address the resident’s concerns. This caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble. Considering these failings, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and request for repairs following a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to offer the resident an apology for the failings set out in this report.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to confirm with the resident when the repairs to the kitchen door will be completed.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay £850 compensation to the resident, made up as follows:
1. £700 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and requests for repairs following the leak.
2. £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to undertake a management review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices. This review must include:
1. An exploration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred, including its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident and her husband.
2. Undertake an assessment against the Ombudsman’s spotlight review on damp and mould.
3. A review of its approach to dealing with reports of damp and mould, including how it prioritises cases, undertakes damp inspections and acts on the findings.
4. A review of its management oversight on reports of damp and mould.
5. A review of its training arrangements for relevant staff to ensure it meets its obligations under the Equality Act, 2010.
6. A review of its record keeping practices, with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight review on knowledge and information management.